Capital Gains Tax up to 40%!

mbga9pgf

There will be a substantial increase in the capital-gains tax paid on so-called “non business” assets such as second homes and shares to cut income tax for lower paid workers.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

kennyboy66_2

Vincenzo wrote: »

It makes no difference where your debt is secured. I have borrowed on a residential property to buy an investment property and offset the interest against the income from the investment. .

100% wrong.

michaels

I am happy for capital gains to be taxed as income - with the proviso that asset prices should be index linked as otherwise it can amount to taxing inflation which is patently unfair.

Vincenzo

kennyboy66 wrote: »

100% wrong.

Care to elaborate?

kennyboy66_2

michaels wrote: »

I am happy for capital gains to be taxed as income - with the proviso that asset prices should be index linked as otherwise it can amount to taxing inflation which is patently unfair.

I'd agree, but isn't taxing savings interest partly taxing inflation ?

Interest being payment for time value (inflation) of money plus risk premium

Pennywise

kennyboy66 wrote: »

100% wrong.

100% right actually - it doesn't matter what the loan is secured on - you can claim relief on any loan up to the value of the property when it was first rented out.

Pennywise

More likely that they'll put capital gains tax back to either 20%/40% or 50% - i.e. your marginal tax rate like it used to be.

The 18% rate with the removal of taper relief (first introduced by Brown and then he took it away again) was stupid. It was far too low.

How can there be any justification for paying just 18% tax on a gain of maybe a hundred thousand, for doing nothing but sitting on your hands watching an investment increase in value, when you'd be taxed at between 30-40% (or even 50% now) if you actually worked in a job to earn that same kind of money.

CGT needs to go back to being relatively high especially for pure "investments", with maybe indexation allowance (scrapped by Gordon) to allow for inflation and some appropriate reliefs for business owners. Perhaps the new coalition will scrap the 13 years of Labour rule changes and go back to common sense of having indexation allowance, retirement relief, etc which had served us quite well!

silvercar

Vincenzo wrote: »

I believe a property given as a gift is deemed to have been transfered at the market value and SDLT is payable as such.

Not when the gift is between spouses.

Vincenzo wrote: »

It makes no difference where your debt is secured. I have borrowed on a residential property to buy an investment property and offset the interest against the income from the investment. Even with the company scenario you can lend money to or borrow it from your company.

kennyboy66 wrote: »

100% wrong.

Vincenzo is right, it is the purpose of the loan that counts not where, or if, it is secured.

StevieJ

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Why would this not apply to BTL ?

I forgot that BTL was treated as an investment rather than a business, having said that the Tories could change this if enough
people were on their case.

chucknorris

StevieJ wrote: »

I forgot that BTL was treated as an investment rather than a business, having said that the Tories could change this if enough
people were on their case.

Would me and chucky be enough people?